ArticleAmerican journal of ophthalmology2021
Qualitative Evaluation of the 10-2 and 24-2 Visual Field Tests for Detecting Central Visual Field Abnormalities in Glaucoma.
Article in American journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Volumetric Analysis of Perimetry Tests to Guide Central Testing: The Functional Vulnerability Zone.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Challenges in Glaucoma Management in High Myopia After Refractive Surgery: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- High-Resolution Microperimetry for Detecting Glaucomatous Damage: A Prospective Evaluation of Performance.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Transformer-Based Deep Learning Prediction of 10-Degree Humphrey Visual Field Tests From 24-Degree Data.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Papillomacular bundle defect (PMBD) in glaucoma patients with high myopia: frequency and risk factors.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Agreement between Compass Fundus Perimeter New Grid and 10-2 Testing Protocols for Detecting Central Visual Field Defects.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaArticle
- Comparison of 10-2 and 24-2 Perimetry to Diagnose Glaucoma Using OCT as an Independent Reference Standard.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaArticle
- Enhancing Detection of Glaucoma Progression: Utility of 24-2 Visual Field Central Points vs. 10-2 Visual Fields.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaObservational
- Association of Visual Field Pattern Reversal with Paracentral Visual Field Loss.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo examine whether glaucomatous central visual field abnormalities can be more effectively detected using a qualitative, expert evaluation of the 10-2 test compared with the topographically corresponding central 12 locations of the 24-2 test (C24-2).
designCross-sectional study.
methodsEyes with a glaucomatous optic nerve appearance or ocular hypertension (n = 523) and healthy eyes (n = 107) were included as cases and control subjects, respectively. The 10-2 and C24-2 visual field results of all eyes were graded by 4 glaucoma specialists for the probability that central visual field abnormalities were present.
resultsThe sensitivity of the 10-2 and C24-2 tests for detecting the cases at 95% specificity were not significantly different (e.g., 32.2% and 31.4%, respectively, for grader 1, P = .87; all graders P ≥ .25). At 95% specificity, the pattern standard deviation values from these tests had a similar sensitivity to the qualitative evaluation for the C24-2 test for all graders (P ≥ .083), but it had a significantly higher sensitivity than the qualitative evaluation for the 10-2 test for 3 graders (P ≤ .016).
conclusionsThe similarity in performance of the 10-2 and C24-2 test suggests that the increased sampling density of the former does not significantly improve the detection of central visual field abnormalities, even when based on expert assessment. These findings should not be taken to mean that the 10-2 test is not useful, but it underscores the need for its utility to be clearly established before incorporating it as routine glaucoma standard of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.